The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Loading ...

Loading ...

This story appears in the {{article.article.magazine.pretty_date}} issue of {{article.article.magazine.pubName}}. Subscribe

Nostalgia for the days when bipartisanship was actually occasionally practiced in Washington still dominates among the political establishment and media. The example of Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill negotiating over tax reform is held up as something that still might be possible, if only. Of course, that's not going to happen as the fight over the sequester cuts and debt limit approaches. It's going to be messy and acrimonious and possibly catastrophic. Because the basic dynamic has changed. Washington operates by customs and behavioral norms as much as it does by laws and parliamentary rules. And in recent years customs and norms have increasingly gone out the window, and a basic, civics textbook approach to political negotiation that has accomplished many things in ordinary circumstances has been replaced by insane forcing mechanisms.

Using the debt ceiling as a hostage in a negotiation was unthinkable before 2011. Now, it is expected. Eagerly anticipated by some, rationalized by others. Take this column by Sen. John Cornyn, which prepares the ground for a government shutdown (and, presumably, default) as necessary measures:

The coming deadlines will be the next flashpoints in our ongoing fight to bring fiscal sanity to Washington. It may be necessary to partially shut down the government in order to secure the long-term fiscal well being of our country, rather than plod along the path of Greece, Italy and Spain. President Obama needs to take note of this reality and put forward a plan to avoid it immediately.

This is irresponsible. Cornyn is basically trying to force Obama to take political risks the GOP itself is unwilling to take (that is, outline entitlement cuts and restructuring), while directly threatening the economic chaos that would ensue when the government stops meeting its obligations. It threatens an actual, immediate catastrophe as a condition for dealing with a thus far distant, thus far imaginary one.

There is no good policy rationale for this radical approach. The economy is slowly recovering; threatening to submarine that recovery serves no one. The broader problem is, though, that this kind of crazy stunt has now become business as usual. As Alec MacGillis writes, in the months leading up to the 2011 debt ceiling fight, the idea of debt hostage-taking was seen as nearly unthinkable. Then, suddenly, it became routine, an ordinary part of the Washington game.

The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza was more blunt in casting the debt-ceiling limit as the natural next step in negotiations: "Make no mistake: No deal on the fiscal cliff was a political loser for Republicans; this is an issue they needed to get off the table in order to find better political ground — debt ceiling — to make their stand."

So: a threat to plunge the nation's into default and with it imperil the nation and world's economy, seen only a year and a half ago as the political equivalent of a nuclear option, is now viewed as "better political ground." What to make of this? The shift in mindset is surely in part a function of basic human nature: our remarkable ability -- for good or ill -- to adapt ourselves to new realities. More than that, though, it is a function of that far more Beltway-unique tendency, to report and comment on politics and governance as pure gamesmanship in such a way that conveys savvy but not judgment. And if it's all a sport, who's to object if one side has radically shifted the goalposts? Good for them, if they can get away with it. And after all, the higher the stakes in the clash, the better the story.

As the Republican Party has moved to the right, its policy goals have become simultaneously more extreme and more vague, to the point of incoherence. Combine this with the decline of shared rules and limits on behavior. More crazy, dangerous stunts are inevitable, and will be seen as business as usual. (Unless, maybe, the media decide to persistently point out just how crazy and dangerous they are.) And, in all likelihood, very little of substance will actually be accomplished.